https://new.uschess.org/news/just-rules-faulty-thinking-or-something-else
Question about the second hypothetical (I posted on the article, but figured it would be easier for some to see here):
Where does a player get the right to play under protest? Rules are pretty clear that the TD can offer to let the player play under protest as an alternative to adjudicating a dispute immediately, but a player certainly isn’t allowed to claim the right to file an appeal later and then continue his game, presumably to flaunt the rule (any rule) in dispute with impunity. Further, if I have a player who is being a problem and is causing me to repeatedly intervene in his game, I’m much less likely to invoke a 1A right to play under protest than I would for a player who isn’t causing problems.
I just don’t see claiming to play the remainder of the game under protest as viable. I mean the logical conclusion would be the next time the player is warned and forfeited he would immediately claim to continue the game under protest but can play recklessly because if he wins the forfeit would be dropped and if he loses then the result is the same anyway.
Alex Relyea
Why can’t a player politely inform a TD about his right to make an upcoming appeal? Are you saying that only silent players can file appeals? I am confused by this post.
Yes, the player can play recklessly - and be further disciplined, if necessary, by the TD.
I’m saying that players have no right to play under protest. 21H, especially 21H1, outlines the appeal procedure and while I’m in favor of judicious application of 1A by TDs, I don’t think players have the right to apply it on their own and would push back strongly if a player told me that a certain rule didn’t apply to them and they were going to use 1A to do something different.
Players are required to appeal effectively immediately for a reason. It would be terribly disruptive to try to go back to a prior point in a game or in a tournament to resolve a successful appeal. And the TD always has the option of considering the appeal later if he feels it would be disruptive to adjudicate it at the time.
How would a player who was ruled to have lost the game by virtue of persistent refusal to follow rules be further punished if he claims the right to play under protest and then throws a massive sacrificial attack at his opponent? Whether or not he keeps score? I mean what are we going to do worse than forfeit him?
Alex Relyea
It may all depend on whether the appeal in question is from the floor TD to the chief TD, or from the chief TD to the U.S. Chess Rules Committee.
A chief TD who reverses a ruling by the floor TD is supposed to inform the player of his right to appeal to the Rules Committee. Isn’t exercising this right the very definition of “playing under protest”?? Surely you are not suggesting that the player should, instead, cease playing, and wait days or even weeks for the Rules Committee’s decision – or are you?
Bill Smythe
No, of course not, but neither am I going to force the opponent to continue playing a game after I have determined that the player has lost because the player claims the intent to file an appeal with Rules. You know as well as I that only a small fraction of people who claim the intent of filing an appeal actually follow through. Under what I, obviously incorrectly, perceive as the Smythe/Just policy it is not at all difficult for me to imagine a disgruntled player to, after his game has been ruled lost, to claim to be playing under protest, and then playing only one or two moves, or even none at all, while waiting the remaining 60 minutes for his flag to fall only to announce he won’t be filing an appeal at all because he guesses his phone really did ring for a second time, and if the TD threatens further sanctions file a minimal appeal or even one to TDCC for threatening sanctions for planning an appeal.
Alex Relyea
Alex, please clarify something.
My understanding of playing under protest is that a ruling has been made (and already appealed to the chief TD) where the players will continue to play (because the TD ruled that it would) but one player still feels that the ruling was so damaging that play will only continue under protest.
Are you saying that there was a game-ending ruling and one player rejects that the game ended and want to continue playing (under protest)? If the game is ruled over then it cannot be continued (can’t say "I really can castle out of checkmate so I am going to protest your game-ending ruling and play on under protest),
Wait a minute. You would declare a player lost just because he tells you he intends to file an appeal with Rules? That makes no sense at all.
Bill Smythe
Mr. Just in his column hypothesized a player who refused to follow the tournament rules so many times that the TD explained that the next time he violated a particular rule his would be forfeited. The player subsequently blundered and resigned and then wanted to file an appeal against the TD for disturbing the player by repeatedly intervening in the game. Mr. Just said that it was too late, and that the player should have informed the TD that he was playing under protest.
My position is that players don’t have the right to play “under protest”. And, further, that had the hypothetical game continued a few more moves and the player once again refused to follow instructions then the TD would have had the right (and obligation) to forfeit the player with no nebulous appeal to the office sufficient to force the opponent to continue. This is analogous to the famous So-Jarecki incident. So had no right to demand that his opponent keep playing after Jarecki had ended the game (properly, according to all concerned) because of So’s persistent refusal to follow rules about notes on scoresheets.
Further, should a player appeal a game-ending result to the office, the relevant committee shouldn’t be swayed by the hypothetical of what might have happened had the game been allowed to reach a more natural conclusion in much the same way we don’t let players “see what would have happened” if they didn’t agree to a draw in the tournament hall where it might be confusing.
In any event, even under the hypothetical above, I find no support in the rules for the concept of “playing under protest”. Rule 25 in all of its component parts is very clear about when a player may file an appeal, and it is not after the position has changed. It further hypothesizes that the TD may not wish to adjudicate the appeal at the moment (there are times in any tournament, no matter how well staffed, when a TD can’t simply step away for 15-30 minutes to deal with one game, not to mention a possible unwillingness to disturb possible witnesses), but the players don’t have that choice. There are a lot of reasons why allowing people to “play under protest” is a very bad idea, and, contrary to what Mr. Smythe may have suggested above, complying with even the most absurd instruction from the TD doesn’t and shouldn’t preclude one from filing a complaint with the office.
Alex Relyea
Ha ha ha.
No. When I declare a player lost (for whatever reason), the player doesn’t get to continue the game (possibly against the opponent’s wishes) just because he claims an intent to file an appeal with the office. Also a draw.
When I say a game is over, a game is over unless one of the players fairly immediately appeals to the chief TD, an appeals committee (in the unlikely event there are three disinterested NTDs playing or otherwise present), or a special referee. Period. There is no other way that the players get to continue.
Alex Relyea
This topic was automatically closed 730 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.